ME3 - You can't debate Star Child because you have a valid logical point.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So while I was thinking about the ME3 ending last night, I was wondering why the **** you can't debate the Starchild at all; and that is when I realized its because any debate with the Starchild with end with you winning; unless the Starchild was able to produce evidence that what he is describing actually occurred outside of his own Reaper interference, he has no logical ground to stand on.

Even if he did produce such evidence, it will merely lead to logical deadlock - both of you can claim logically sound and valid points, which in actually means the Starchild is still wrong because a non-zero possibility of his being wrong still exists.

"What the hell are you talking about?!" is what you're probably asking right now. Well, get ready to math.

In reduced logical terms, this is what the Starchild states:

If organics Create synthetics, then synthetics will always Destroy organics.

In logic form, this would look like C>D. What he is implying through his argument is C>D, C*D (synthetics created and destroyed organics), so C>D. So it would be:

C>D / C*D // C>D

The truth table (remember these from high school?) would be:

C>D / C*D // C>D
T T T T F T T T T
T F F T F F T F F
F T T F T T F T T
F T F F F F F T F

Conclusion: Valid argument.

However, it hinges completely on the idea the D (synthetics destroy organics) is true - something for which there is no evidence of, anywhere, making it an untrue argument. He is in essence making two conclusions in one statement. Since there is only evidence against D, Shepard could make the counter argument:

C>D / C*~D // C>~D
T T T T F F T T F F T
T F F T T T F T T T F
F T T F F F T F T F T
F T F F F T F F T T F

In English, "If organics create synthetics, then synthetics will always destroy organics / Synthetics created but did not destroy organics // Therefore if organics create synthetics, synthetics will not always destroy organics."

Conclusion: Valid, true argument.

Shepard could also make the opposite argument of Starchild, C>~D / C*~D // C>~D, which is still logically valid (and true).

In essence, you're not allowed to debate Starchild because Starchild is patently wrong (at the very best) or in a deadlock with with Shepard (at the very worst), meaning if you debate him you destroy the whole ending right there.

TL;DR - Poorly thought out ending is poorly thought out, and Starchild can go pucker himself with some good old fashioned logic.

NOTE: Reposted from my topic on the BSN.

I was hoping for a Renegade Interrupt where Shepard says "I'm tired of your disingenuous assertions." and punches the Star Child out.

Yeah...... I need to pay more attention in maths.

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I was hoping for a Renegade Interrupt where Shepard says "I'm tired of your disingenuous assertions." and punches the Star Child out.

I still wonder why they decided to make it a child, of all things.

I mean, come on. Children piss me off in day to day life, I dont need another little shit ruining my day.

Starchild, get fucked with a rake.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I was hoping for a Renegade Interrupt where Shepard says "I'm tired of your disingenuous assertions." and punches the Star Child out.

I still wonder why they decided to make it a child, of all things.

I mean, come on. Children piss me off in day to day life, I dont need another little shit ruining my day.

Starchild, get fucked with a rake.

I think it was supposed to be...deep? Taking the form of the boy that I had no emotional attachment to at all throughout the game.

A. Censor your title
B. it was all a dream
C. We all hate the star child

Is that actual maths on how Mass Effect ended? You need to take a step back, think about what you're devoting time on and re-evaluate lad.

The problem with maths is that it can reflect poorly in real life. The game itself presented no evidence in the story and in fact shows that there will be some megalomaniacs who would think this.

Hence the Reapers. A self-fulling prophecy.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I was hoping for a Renegade Interrupt where Shepard says "I'm tired of your disingenuous assertions." and punches the Star Child out.

I still wonder why they decided to make it a child, of all things.

I mean, come on. Children piss me off in day to day life, I dont need another little shit ruining my day.

Starchild, get fucked with a rake.

I think it was supposed to be...deep? Taking the form of the boy that I had no emotional attachment to at all throughout the game.

Knowing Bioware it probably was another attempt to be deep and get some emotion out of the player.

Of course, since its a Bioware game, the attempt fell flat.

They could solve the debate with sparkle boy quite easily.

Make him corporeal so I can shoot him in the face .... I win, end of debate, end of Reapers and Liara can Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!

Well if you read the interviews from the $3 app it was mentioned that they had considered a more normal conversation, and letting the player ask questions to get the promised answers, but then decided it would be "better" to not give the player the answers. Doubtlessly because they less they reveal now is more than could use for futher games down the road without having to create anything new.

The entire sequence happens the way it does because it's a crappy ending that doesn't fit with the spirit of the game. Bioware admitted that the ending was designed to generate contreversy and spark debate and discussion... which happened, but not the way they wanted.

There really isn't much more that can be said about it that hasn't already been said, Bioware pretty much put a giant foot in it's mouth, which is why it was a big deal when Chris Priestly stood by the validity of the interviews from that app.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I was hoping for a Renegade Interrupt where Shepard says "I'm tired of your disingenuous assertions." and punches the Star Child out.

I still wonder why they decided to make it a child, of all things.

I mean, come on. Children piss me off in day to day life, I dont need another little shit ruining my day.

Starchild, get fucked with a rake.

It really shouldn't have been a kid

I always imagined some dude in white robes, glowing, with his head held up slightly in a totally smug manner looking down at the wounded Shepard with an expression like Shepard was so insignificant that he wasn't even worth his time, and hundreds if not thousands of holographic screens in the background showing synthetics totally destroying organic civilizations across time.

Make his eyes look uber weird also, like it is starting into your soul, that would make him look badass, and all the screens in the background would give some credence to his motives.

Yea...
I still don't get it math or no math.

:(

Paragon Fury:
Snip

Not to come in here demanding anything- but regardless that i've beaten ME3, your title gives off a big spoiler. May you please change it for the sake of those who haven't completed the game yet? Would be much appreciated (after all, most people here don't consider the fact a majority of gamers are still waiting for a nice deal on ME3 within a few months or year, depending.)

OT: No one can debate about ME3's ending.. because whether you believe it's the Indoctrination Theory or something else- everyone can agree that it's just a poorly written ending that not only gives no closure, but gives us more plot holes then any game has ever had in the history of gaming.. or entertainment for that matter.

Also, note that the Indoctrination Theory is probably proven false now because Bioware is giving us a free DLC explaining about ME3's ending so yeah... well, least they've confirmed that no one starves so that's a good starter (yet not going to make me feel any different though.)

I didn't think people like OP really existed. I always thought it was some crazy bedtime story to keep kids off the internet.

Here, I'll simplify without the unnecessary and ridiculous math: The Star Child is talking out of his ass and Shepard can't call him out on it because it would potentially screw up the ending.

I had that figured out since the credits started rolling. Still, if this is how you like to spend your free time then by all means. :p

captcha: "Hot-n-ready pizza" That actually does sound good right about now... I think I'll call Pizza Hut. Not Little Caesars, that place sucks!

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I was hoping for a Renegade Interrupt where Shepard says "I'm tired of your disingenuous assertions." and punches the Star Child out.

THIS.

THIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO FIX EVERYTHING.

Seriously, all that stuff about closure, about wanting the ending to make sense.... I could work with it if there was only that option. I would buy the PC version if someone made a mod that allowed a person to do that.

In all seriousnees, it wouldn't fix everything. But it would definitly help with the healing process.

Bioware wouldn't let you argue with him (it), because they knew it would prompt a much better ending that would need more content, thus falling outside EA's schedule parameters... or something.

Case in Point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6e9nokg1NQ&t=1m28s

Paragon Fury:
Snip

And all I can say is thank God I did Maths C & B back in high school, cause I sought of understand what you're saying!

And kudos to you too. You successfully negotiated the flawed logic of the machines using their language - mathematics. It's just a pity Bioware didn't give us the option to do that although with all the talk of 'the calculus of war' among characters you would have thought someone would have made it an option.

Guys, this is important!

We now have a mathematical proof that Casey Hudson is a pants on head retard!

What's the point of 'debating' the Star Child? Doesn't he flat out admit he was wrong when you first meet him anyway. That's why he gives you the choice at the end: he realises that, simply by uniting the galaxy, building the Crucible and organising this massive resistance against the Reapers, you've already proven him wrong about organics anyway.

Don't get me wrong, he's still irritating and I was happy to waste a few bullets on him before making my choice, but there's never any real need to 'debate' him in the game, as far as I can see.

I spent like 10 minutes just trying to shoot that little twat

Kingjackl:
What's the point of 'debating' the Star Child? Doesn't he flat out admit he was wrong when you first meet him anyway. That's why he gives you the choice at the end: he realises that, simply by uniting the galaxy, building the Crucible and organising this massive resistance against the Reapers, you've already proven him wrong about organics anyway.

Don't get me wrong, he's still irritating and I was happy to waste a few bullets on him before making my choice, but there's never any real need to 'debate' him in the game, as far as I can see.

No he says the cycle is broken, not that he was wrong back when it wasn't broken.

Im still hanging out for indoctrination theory...its the best thing we have right now (which I know isnt saying much)

Paragon Fury:

However, it hinges completely on the idea the D (synthetics destroy organics) is true - something for which there is no evidence of, anywhere, making it an untrue argument.

So, basically, all the Star Child then has to do is relate an incident where organically-created synthetic lifeforms ALMOST managed to wipe out all organic life, and your idea falls flat right then and there.

Jesus christ what did I just read? Is this what I have to look forward to in college?

Yelp

Otherwise, we already knew this, even without the math the star childs conclusion is utter bollocks.

Obviously they used a child to get a reaction out of all the fans of child-killing mods, who were guaranteed to be ticked off ;)

FelixG:
Guys, this is important!

We now have a mathematical proof that Casey Hudson is a pants on head retard!

I thought the ending did that well enough for itself without having some math thrown in for good measure.

I-Protest-I:
Is that actual maths on how Mass Effect ended? You need to take a step back, think about what you're devoting time on and re-evaluate lad.

he came up with a complex equation, about a game of course but it's still mathematics he's practicing on.

IM more concerned with the fact that he created the reapers to destroy organics so that organics wouldn't create synthectics that would destroy the organics

Actually, what the star child says is technically, and demonstrably correct. The argument that when organics create synthetics, synthetics will destroy organics is true because organics created the reapers (a synthetics race) who destroy organics. They fulfill their own prophecy through the nature of their existence. To put it in your math terms, the formula can only ne C>D
(please don't take this as a defence of the ending, i thought it was a complete wankstain on the series)

I was talking with some friends about this kind of illogical reasoning and some tried to argue that in some instances the Starchild is right, specifically if your Shepard failed to unite the Quarians and Geth.

I pointed out that it doesn't make sense in any case:

Either you:

-United the Geth and Quarians: Proving they can work together and coexistance without destruction is possible (if still wrought with uncertainty)

-Supported the Geth, and the Quarians died: The Geth still ally themselves with you (a organic) to fight the Reapers.

-Destroy the Geth and support the Quarians: In which case you demonstrate that you (as an organic) can handle the threat of synthetics on your own. You don't need the "help" from the Reapers to deal with them.

In each case you should be able to tell the Star-Child to shove it. Taking away any ability to ask questions and argue with the Star-Child was either a deliberate attempt to show Shepard was in a altered state (i.e: indoctrinated dream-state) or sheer laziness and averision on behalf of the writer.

EMFCRACKSHOT:
Actually, what the star child says is technically, and demonstrably correct. The argument that when organics create synthetics, synthetics will destroy organics is true because organics created the reapers (a synthetics race) who destroy organics. They fulfill their own prophecy through the nature of their existence.
(please don't take this as a defence of the ending, i thought it was a complete wankstain on the series)

It isn't stated who created the Reapers so they aren't necessarily of organic creation. Well, actually, I believe starchild said he created them, but he's synthetic too. Which really leads back to the same conclusion - starchild isn't necessarily of organic creation.

Also it's clearly untrue because they are beaten hence synthetics will not always destroy organics.

Paragon Fury:
However, it hinges completely on the idea the D (synthetics destroy organics) is true - something for which there is no evidence of, anywhere, making it an untrue argument.

Not to nitpick, but there was evidence of that everywhere in the ME universe right up until Shepard started doing impossible things like forging peace with synthetics. It was that way when the Reapers were forged, presumably it had been that way in every cycle since, it was certainly that way in this cycle because AI research was universally outlawed, that's why when you try to make nice to the renegade slot machine hyjacker in ME1 whoever is in your squad with you says 'ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?! IT'S A DAMNED AI, KILL IT WITH FIRE BEFORE IT KILLS US!' and the dialog wheel says 'Yeah, they're right, no more make nice options, just kill it you pussy.'

You are of course correct, the fact that you have new, undeniable evidence that synthetics and organics can live in harmony (and all it took was one nice person who listens to other people's problems to shatter a timeless ironclad universal truth, see, Mom was right all along!) and all of your options are to completely re-define the impossible balance you've just forged is beyond asinine:

Congratulations you've made peace between synthetics and organics, now all the synthetics you made peace with are murdered; I hope things work out when you write up a new batch and they find out you murdered all of their predecessors.

Congratulations you've made peace between synthetics and organics, now lets just make you slavemaster over all synthetics; you can pick and choose favorites and lets just hope they never figure out any way to avoid your control because hoo Nelly will they be even more pissed at organics if they do.

Congratulations you've made peace between synthetics and organics, now why don't you simultaneously change everything everywhere at a molecular level and hope everything shakes out well since it's all going to be the same and no new universe shattering paradoxes get created.

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I was hoping for a Renegade Interrupt where Shepard says "I'm tired of your disingenuous assertions." and punches the Star Child out.

this is exactly what I thought, and as the arbiter of all things cool I hereby declair that you have won the internet.

EMFCRACKSHOT:
Actually, what the star child says is technically, and demonstrably correct. The argument that when organics create synthetics, synthetics will destroy organics is true because organics created the reapers (a synthetics race) who destroy organics. They fulfill their own prophecy through the nature of their existence. To put it in your math terms, the formula can only ne C>D
(please don't take this as a defence of the ending, i thought it was a complete wankstain on the series)

The problem with this is that you equate a one time occurrence with a universal truth. If I fire a gun at a target and hit it, does that mean that the gun will always hit the target? If I crash my car does that mean all cars will crash? The basis that synthetics have been created to destroy organics does not price that organics will inevitably create synthetics or that those synthetics will inevitably wipe out organic life it really does not hold up after the peace between the geth and the quarians or after ede provided help risking her own life to protect organics from the reapers, despite essentially being one at her core.

Lupus80:
In each case you should be able to tell the Star-Child to shove it. Taking away any ability to ask questions and argue with the Star-Child was either a deliberate attempt to show Shepard was in a altered state (i.e: indoctrinated dream-state) or sheer laziness and averision on behalf of the writer.

Because it's easy to change the mind of someone who's been set in their logic for a long time, right? Because it's not like the Reapers have had 37 million years of being set in their own logic.

The lynchpin, the main sticking point, is D, the destruction of all organic life at the hands of a race of synthetic life forms. The Reapers believe it will happen, that it is only a matter of time before it happens, and there is no chance that it won't eventually happen.

What evidence can Shepard provide to the alternative? Yes, in many cases, Shepard can show that D isn't currently 1, that it isn't anywhere close to 1, but he's unable to definitely prove that D will NEVER equal 1.

In the entire 37 million year history of the Reapers, D has NEVER been 1, so "logically", what they're doing is working, so what reason would they have for stopping a winning strategy? If your workplace has been "Accident Free for: '37 Million Years'", you do NOT want to be the supervisor when things go bad.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked